Everolimus and temsirolimus are not the same second-line in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Clinical trial Efficacy Everolimus Survival Temsirolimus mRCC

Journal

Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E
ISSN: 1478-7547
Titre abrégé: Cost Eff Resour Alloc
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170476

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 Jan 2023
Historique:
received: 09 10 2022
accepted: 21 01 2023
entrez: 26 1 2023
pubmed: 27 1 2023
medline: 27 1 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common type of kidney cancer. VEGF inhibitors and mTORs are the most common therapeutic options among the different classes of available treatments. In this study, the effectiveness of Everolimus was compared to Temsirolimus, and Everolimus plusLenvatinib in renal cell carcinoma patients by review of the international clinical evidence. A systematic review was conducted and all relevant published clinical studies on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Everolimus, Temsirolimus, and Lenvatinib plus Everolimus were searched comprehensively in electronic databases including Pubmed, Scopus, Medline, Cochrane Library, and ISI web of science. The Q score and I2 test checked the Heterogeneity and publication bias test, respectively. Egger's test and Begg's test were used to checking publication bias. The hazard ratio (HR) of included studies and subclass analysis were estimated by fixed and random effect models. Out of 1816 found studies, ultimately, were included considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. None of these studies evaluated all three treatment strategies together and each study was about one strategy. Only one study was found for Everolimus plus Lenvatinib, so it was excluded from meta-analysis. Overall, data from 526 patients on Temsirolimus and 648 patients on Everolimus were included in Meta-Analysis. Accordingly, the efficacy of Everolimus and Temsirolimus was not statistically significant in assessed outcomes (PFS, TTSF, and death). However, Everlimus is superior to Temsirolimus in OS (Q = 3.61, p-value: 0.462, I2 = 0%). No heterogeneity or bias was detected. According to the results of this study, Everolimus could be related to an increase of OS versus Temsirolimus as a second line treatment of ORCC patients.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36703202
doi: 10.1186/s12962-023-00420-4
pii: 10.1186/s12962-023-00420-4
pmc: PMC9878789
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

10

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

Lancet Oncol. 2015 Nov;16(15):1473-1482
pubmed: 26482279
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Aug 10;33(23):2563-77
pubmed: 26101248
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Mar;14(3):e87
pubmed: 23452356
CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 Nov;67(6):507-524
pubmed: 28961310
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Nov 10;31(32):4151-7
pubmed: 24127450
Cancer Treat Rev. 2008 May;34(3):193-205
pubmed: 18313224
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2016 Apr;14(2):153-9
pubmed: 26781820
NPJ Precis Oncol. 2019 Dec 5;3:31
pubmed: 31840081
Eur Urol. 2011 Oct;60(4):615-21
pubmed: 21741761
J Transl Med. 2007 Jul 02;5:32
pubmed: 17605814
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Eur Urol. 2015 May;67(5):913-24
pubmed: 25616710
Curr Med Res Opin. 2014 Apr;30(4):537-45
pubmed: 24329572
Iran J Public Health. 2018 Mar;47(3):309-316
pubmed: 29845017
Health Policy. 2015 Oct;119(10):1309-18
pubmed: 26344426
J Clin Pharmacol. 2007 Nov;47(11):1430-9
pubmed: 17913896
Daru. 2013 May 25;21(1):40
pubmed: 23706012
CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Jul;70(4):283-298
pubmed: 32583884
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2015 Apr;13(2):137-41
pubmed: 25160521
Sci Rep. 2017 Nov 16;7(1):15698
pubmed: 29146923
N Engl J Med. 2007 May 31;356(22):2271-81
pubmed: 17538086
Biomedicine (Taipei). 2018 Jun;8(2):9
pubmed: 29806587
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2013 Jun;11(2):115-20
pubmed: 23063578
J Clin Pharm Ther. 2021 Feb;46(1):35-49
pubmed: 33112003

Auteurs

Zahra Goudarzi (Z)

Health Human Resources Research Center, Department of Health Economics, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

Mehrdad Mostafavi (M)

Faculty of Pharmacy, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

Mahmood Salesi (M)

Chemical Injuries Research Center, Systems Biology and Poisonings Institute, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Mojtaba Jafari (M)

Health Human Resources Research Center, Department of Health Economics, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

Iman Mirian (I)

Department of Public Health, School of Health, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran.

Amir Hashemi Meshkini (A)

Department of Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmaceutical Administration, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Khosro Keshavarz (K)

Health Human Resources Research Center, Department of Health Economics, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. khkeshavarz2007@gmail.com.
Emergency Medicine Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. khkeshavarz2007@gmail.com.

Younes Ghasemi (Y)

Pharmaceutical Science Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

Classifications MeSH